Automated Pavement Condition Surveys (2019) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 41-74
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 41... ...
41 The timing of this synthesis provided an opportunity to obtain and summarize SHA DQMPs in response to the federal requirements. As previously discussed, 23 CFR 490 required agencies to develop and submit DQMPs to the FHWA by May 18, 2018 (Code of Federal Regulations 2017)
|
From page 42... ...
WA OR CA MT ID NV AZ UT WY CO NM TX OK KS NE SD ND MN IA MO AR LA MS AL GA FL SC TN NC IL WI MI OH IN KY WV VA PA NY ME VTNH NJ DE MD MA CT RI AK HI Data Quality Plan Received Figure 19. Data quality plans received from SHAs.
|
From page 43... ...
Summary of Agency Data Quality Procedures 43 equipment, sensor measurements) , standard or protocol, and description of the standard or protocol.
|
From page 44... ...
44 Automated Pavement Condition Surveys Category Standard/Protocol Description Number of Agencies Condition manual HPMS Field Manual (FHWA 2016) Standards for condition assessment on NHS roadways 24 Agency manuals Agency-specific distress identification manual 14 LTPP Manual (Miller and Bellinger 2014)
|
From page 45... ...
Arkansas -- -- British Columbia -- -- -- -- -- California -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Connecticut -- -- -- -- -- -- Delaware -- -- -- -- Illinois -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Maryland -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Minnesota -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- New Hampshire -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- New Mexico -- -- -- -- New York -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- North Carolina -- -- -- -- -- North Dakota -- -- -- -- -- -- Oregon -- -- -- -- -- -- Pennsylvania -- -- -- -- Quebec -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Saskatchewan -- -- -- -- -- -- Tennessee -- -- -- -- -- Texas -- -- -- -- -- -- Utah -- -- -- -- Vermont -- -- -- -- West Virginia -- -- -- -- -- -- Washington -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Total 15 1 18 19 19 9 5 5 5 1 Note: -- = N/A. Agency Percent Crack (HPMS)
|
From page 46... ...
46 Automated Pavement Condition Surveys Control, Verification, and Blind Site Testing Control, verification, and blind site testing are used for monitoring and ensuring data quality of the collected pavement condition data before and during data collection. Control site testing is conducted by the agency before production testing to certify, calibrate, and verify data collection equipment meets the agency-specified quality standards.
|
From page 47... ...
Summary of Agency Data Quality Procedures 47 representative of highway pavement conditions. Pavement condition assessment at verification sites is conducted by the highway agency, and typically is not used to establish reference values.
|
From page 48... ...
48 Automated Pavement Condition Surveys Category Activity Data completeness • Total length matches expected length. • Total number of sections matches expected number of sections.
|
From page 49... ...
Summary of Agency Data Quality Procedures 49 Agency Requirements Alaska (Alaska DOT 2018) • Equipment calibrated and certified • Profiler o Repeatability ≥ 95% o Accuracy ≥ 90% o Bounce test ≤ 1% o Block check ± 0.01 in.
|
From page 50... ...
50 Automated Pavement Condition Surveys Maryland (Maryland DOT 2018) • Calibration and quality checks o DMI runs < 1.0 pulse/ft (0.3 pulse/m)
|
From page 51... ...
Summary of Agency Data Quality Procedures 51 Agency Requirements North Dakota (North Dakota DOT 2018) • IRI and DMI o > 95% compliant with standards Equipment configuration, calibration, verification Daily equipment checks and realtime monitoring Inspect uploaded data samples Inspect processed data Final data review • Rut, fault, GPS, and grade o > 95% compliant with standards Initial equipment configuration, calibration, verification Daily equipment checks and realtime monitoring Inspect uploaded data samples Inspect processed data Final data review • Distress rating o > 80% match with manual survey Initial rater training Intra-rater checks Final data review • Images o > 98% compliant with standards of each control section o < 5 consecutive images failing to meet criteria Startup checks, real-time monitoring, field review Uploaded sample review Final review Oregon (Oregon DOT 2018)
|
From page 52... ...
Agency Requirements Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania DOT 2018a) • Equipment calibration and certification o Block calibration and test o Roughness calibration and bounce test o DMI calibration o Laser Crack Measuring System (LCMS)
|
From page 53... ...
Summary of Agency Data Quality Procedures 53 Agency Requirements Alaska (Alaska DOT 2018) One control site for profiler and DMI certification and 6 verification sites Condition IRI Alligator cracking Rut Crack length Images Criteria (10 runs)
|
From page 54... ...
54 Automated Pavement Condition Surveys Iowa (Iowa DOT 2018) • Control sites o 4 asphalt and 4 concrete sites o 1,500 ft (457 m)
|
From page 55... ...
Summary of Agency Data Quality Procedures 55 Oregon (Oregon DOT 2018) • 1 control site for IRI and 1 control site for rutting o Preproduction testing, monthly verification testing, and postsurvey exit controls Condition LRS IRI Rut Criteria Correct code and lane, location ± 0.03 mi (0.05 km)
|
From page 56... ...
56 Automated Pavement Condition Surveys Agency Requirements Saskatchewan (Saskatchewan Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure 2017) 1,2 • 1 control site, 492 ft (150 m)
|
From page 57... ...
Summary of Agency Data Quality Procedures 57 Acceptance Requirements Agency acceptance requirements are activities performed to assess the quality of the submitted condition data. There can be a wide range of agency acceptance requirements depending on agency needs.
|
From page 58... ...
58 Automated Pavement Condition Surveys Agency Requirements Alaska (Alaska DOT 2018) • Data o > 98% complete o > 98% populated with required data elements o 100% description information o > 98% < 500 ft (152 m)
|
From page 59... ...
Summary of Agency Data Quality Procedures 59 Maryland (Maryland DOT 2018) • IRI o Completeness > 85% o Speed check > 35 mph (56 km/h)
|
From page 60... ...
60 Automated Pavement Condition Surveys New York (New York DOT 2018) • 10% random sample (collected by DOT and compared to vendor results)
|
From page 61... ...
Summary of Agency Data Quality Procedures 61 Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania DOT 2018a) • 2.5% random sample • Minimum of 3 agency raters perform at least 2 ratings per site • Analysis of historical data: plot 3 years of condition data, summed and normalized for all segments in batch by pavement type; differences are checked and sent to vendor for review and resubmission as needed • Image brightness, clarity, focus • Check the reported location of the images for all interstates and 4 or 5 routes from each county in each batch • Cross check pavement surface type with agency maintenance and construction work history • Check upload of data into Roadway Management System • Average for each distress and severity on each site is used to evaluate vendor's results Condition IRI Distress Location Section begin ROW images Criteria ± 25% avg agency value ± 20% avg agency Correct segment surveyed ± 40 ft (12 m)
|
From page 62... ...
62 Automated Pavement Condition Surveys Virginia (Virginia DOT 2015) • Bridge start and end locations ± 0.001 mi (0.0016 km)
|
From page 63... ...
Summary of Agency Data Quality Procedures 63 In addition, an element-level review of asphalt pavements and JPCP is conducted. An element is defined as 26.4 ft (8 m)
|
From page 64... ...
64 Automated Pavement Condition Surveys Table 34 through Table 36 summarizing Illinois DOT's, New Mexico DOT's, and Oregon DOT's corrective actions, respectively. Independent Review Of the responding agencies, North Carolina DOT and Texas DOT provided documentation related to independent review of vendor-conducted pavement condition surveys.
|
From page 65... ...
Summary of Agency Data Quality Procedures 65 Deliverable Acceptance Testing Action if Criteria Not Met Data completeness > 98% Total network miles (excludes areas closed to construction) Return deliverable for re-collection 100% Delivered data accurately populated with description information (system, route, direction, and begin and end latitude/longitude)
|
From page 66... ...
66 Automated Pavement Condition Surveys Sensor data: IRI, rut, and faulting (by district) 100% Compliant with control site and verification testing requirements Reject all data since last passing verification; re-calibrate DCV and re-collect affected routes 95% Data within expected values based on year-to-year time series • IRI ± 10% • Rut ± 0.10 in.
|
From page 67... ...
Summary of Agency Data Quality Procedures 67 y = 1.1097x + 0.853 R² = 0.8538 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 Ve nd or Al lig at or C ra ck in g Pe rc en t Independent Quality Assurance - Alligator Cracking Percent Lower and Upper Limit Line of Equality Linear Regression Figure 22. Line of equality plot for alligator cracking data (adapted from North Carolina DOT 2018)
|
From page 68... ...
68 Automated Pavement Condition Surveys As shown in Figure 22, there may be a potential difference in ratings when the vendor noted alligator cracking percentage greater than 50%; however, additional sampling may be warranted to confirm this trend (North Carolina DOT 2018)
|
From page 69... ...
Summary of Agency Data Quality Procedures 69 Oklahoma • Vendor submits data • Agency checks integrity, conducts database queries, and reviews manual survey • Updating antiquated proprietary software • Staffing with qualified and experienced personnel • Working through issues with vendor and agency personnel Ontario • LCMS™ data processed and aggregated • Export to internally developed software to determine pavement metrics and indices • Large volume of data and difference in metrics required development of new algorithms and verification protocols • Recruited staff with big data experience to develop solutions in handling data set • Redeveloped asset management system to integrate new data set and used artificial intelligence for distress categorization and Pennsylvania • Condition data delivered by flat file • Data summarized by roadway segments • Load into Roadway Management System • Roadway Management System is an old mainframe dating back to the mid-80s • Funding for new system, many of the agency systems "don't speak the same language" Wyoming • Import data into pavement management system • Overlapping sections due to equations and phantom "over-runs." • Manually fix the equation problem; the phantom "overrun" sections are deleted Utah • Not provided • Changing technologies • LiDAR to locate "assets" and lost control of pavement condition collection process • Not provided Agency Integration Process Data Issues Issue Resolution Arizona • Agency provides spatial file • Vendor delivers data in GIS format • Data stored in SQL database • 2017 comparison of manual and automated cracking did not match • Challenges with converting from milepost to measurement system • Compare manual to automated, if no correlation, use recent automated data • Training and revising GIS database to accommodate new data British Columbia • Load data directly into pavement management system • Matching with other agency referencing systems • Use GPS coordinates to match data California • GIS to develop an interactive map • Information technology support • Hire a GIS expert Connecticut • Working on integrating LRS into pavement management database • 2 LRS makes it very labor intensive to migrate data into pavement management system • Not provided Georgia • Not fully developed at this time • Locating segments • Software format, LRS, and network change propagation • Standardize segmentation • Address through software developers Illinois • LRS joined with other collected data • Linked to roadway database and a structure database • Changes made to the LRS creates data alignment problems • Reduce the number of changes to the LRS • Coordinate and document so staff can adjust the data based on LRS changes New Hampshire • Joined through HPMS coordinator • Numerous and subtle; one was data consistency • Snapshotting data North Dakota • Data exported to mainframe and averaged per segment • Mainframe system in need of replacement • Looking into software solutions to possibly replace the mainframe system • Pavement management for additional analysis • Image storage • Import to pavement management software • Revisions required on how new metrics contribute to performance metrics and strategy decision process quantification of LCMS™ data Table 37. Agency pavement condition data integration process, issues, and resolutions.
|
From page 70... ...
70 Automated Pavement Condition Surveys • New algorithms and verification protocols required and impact on performance metrics and strategy decision process (one agency) ; • Changing technologies (one agency)
|
From page 71... ...
Summary of Agency Data Quality Procedures 71 Agency Information Stored Format Arizona • Photo and video log, LCMS™ images • Raw distress data • Good-fair-poor rating • Sign and striping inventory • Data in SQL database • Photo, video log, and LCMS™ images viewable online from vendor-hosted site British Columbia • Raw data • Images • Oracle database • Photolog application California • Images • Elemental data (26.4 ft [8.0 m]
|
From page 72... ...
72 Automated Pavement Condition Surveys Agency Items Schedule Arizona All data (since 2014) Indefinitely British Columbia All data Indefinitely California All data and images 10 or more years Connecticut All data (since 2001)
|
From page 73... ...
Summary of Agency Data Quality Procedures 73 Network Length1 Cost per mi (km) Semi-, Full, or both Collects/Analyzes2 Distress Types Collected and Analyzed3 Medium $199 ($165)
|
From page 74... ...
74 Automated Pavement Condition Surveys Accomplishments and Challenges of Automated Condition Surveys As a follow-up to the survey, agencies were asked to provide information related to their successes and challenges with automated condition surveys. The following provides a summary of responses.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.